So, who here doesn't believe in evolution?

[D-Rose]

Weekly can of worms opening...

and I mean evolution as in the scientific theory with natural selection as its primary mechanism...NOT individuals evolving, but rather populations.

Is there any valid evidence for creationism? Unbiased, non biblical evidence?

Why is it that the scientific community overwhelmingly says that evolution is a scientific theory that we can say beyond a doubt is a certainty (as much as certainty is possible in empirical science), and yet millions of people don't believe in it?

GO!

[Is He Ill]

Weekly can of worms opening...

and I mean evolution as in the scientific theory with natural selection as its primary mechanism...NOT individuals evolving, but rather populations.

Is there any valid evidence for creationism? Unbiased, non biblical evidence?

Why is it that the scientific community overwhelmingly says that evolution is a scientific theory that we can say beyond a doubt is a certainty (as much as certainty is possible in empirical science), and yet millions of people don't believe in it?

GO!

That's the problem. I think the majority of people that don't believe in evolution just don't understand what it is.

[D-Rose]

That's the problem. I think the majority of people that don't believe in evolution just don't understand what it is.
EXACTLY. It's not what their Pastor tells them it is.

[-p.tiddy-]

I 100% believe in evolution...but as far as human beings go, not ruling out alien-ape half breed test subject :D

http://www.garysoszynski.com/storage/THELINK.jpg

[riseagainst]

creationism and evolution are both theories. One has evidence, the other is all faith. But even the one with the evidence is still called a theory. It just comes down to what the thread says: "believe".

[Is He Ill]

I 100% believe in evolution...but as far as human beings go, not ruling out alien-ape half breed test subject :D

http://www.garysoszynski.com/storage/THELINK.jpg

:oldlol: Even though I know it's bullsh*t, I like to think of it as a possibility as well.

[CelticBaller]

I think lowly of people who don't believe that evolution is real. I am sorry but it really irks me.

Once I was arguing with this kid, and his arguments was if evolution is real, and we came from monkeys, why are there monkeys still out there? Hey idiot, dogs came from wolves, and there still many species of wolves out there :facepalm

[nightprowler10]

I 100% believe in evolution...but as far as human beings go, not ruling out alien-ape half breed test subject :D

http://www.garysoszynski.com/storage/THELINK.jpg
Some one actually painted that...

[Is He Ill]

I think lowly of people who don't believe that evolution is real. I am sorry but it really irks me.

Once I was arguing with this kid, and his arguments was if evolution is real, and we came from monkeys, why are there monkeys still out there? Hey idiot, dogs came from wolves, and there still many species of wolves out there :facepalm

That's probably the most common statement that come from people who don't understand evolution.

[D-Rose]

creationism and evolution are both theories. One has evidence, the other is all faith. But even the one with the evidence is still called a theory. It just comes down to what the thread says: "believe".
Do you know what "theory" means in science? Think of the theory of gravity, lol in science a hypothesis is something that you can believe, a theory is something that is the closest thing to absolute certainty.

[-p.tiddy-]

I think lowly of people who don't believe that evolution is real. I am sorry but it really irks me.

Once I was arguing with this kid, and his arguments was if evolution is real, and we came from monkeys, why are there monkeys still out there? Hey idiot, dogs came from wolves, and there still many species of wolves out there :facepalm
bad example...dogs were created by humans...bred from wolves, coyote, jackles, etc

today's dog breeds didn't just evolve from wolf...

[-p.tiddy-]

Do you know what "theory" means in science? Think of the theory of gravity, lol in science a hypothesis is something that you can believe, a theory is something that is the closest thing to absolute certainty.
isn't a "law" the closest thing to "certain"?

[CelticBaller]

bad example...dogs were created by humans...bred from wolves, coyote, jackles, etc

today's dog breeds didn't just evolve from wolf...
No it isn't, Humans separated from their closest ancestor and bred with each other, some also bred with neanderthals. Just like humans separated wolves from their groups used selective breeding and domesticated them.


It's a really simple/similar to each other.

[riseagainst]

Do you know what "theory" means in science? Think of the theory of gravity, lol in science a hypothesis is something that you can believe, a theory is something that is the closest thing to absolute certainty.

a theory is a hypothesis; a law is a proven fact, at least in the universe that we know of. So a law is the closest thing to certainty.

Theory: theory of relativity
Law: Law of thermodynamics, law of conservation of mass/energy.

and there is no theory of gravity. Gravity has been proven to exist.
:coleman:

[Dresta]

creationism and evolution are both theories. One has evidence, the other is all faith. But even the one with the evidence is still called a theory. It just comes down to what the thread says: "believe".
Not really: we have directly observed evolution taking place in microorganisms. The only way you can deny it is to adhere to a form of relativism that renders everything derived from perceptions (therefore everything) utterly meaningless. There sits intellectual and moral chaos.

One is left with no choice then to accept it as a fact, unless one is a moron of course.

[miller-time]

a theory is a hypothesis; a law is a proven fact, at least in the universe that we know of. So a law is the closest thing to certainty.

A hypothesis is your starting point, you come up with a possible explanation (model) and then test it. If the experiment shows that it is wrong then the hypothesis is dropped, if after enough experimentation we are confident the model has explanatory power we keep it and call it a theory. Theories are usually also more fleshed out than hypotheses because after repeated experimentation more things are discovered about the model.

[Dresta]

a theory is a hypothesis; a law is a proven fact, at least in the universe that we know of. So a law is the closest thing to certainty.

Theory: theory of relativity
Law: Law of thermodynamics, law of conservation of mass/energy.

and there is no theory of gravity. Gravity has been proven to exist.
:coleman:
The law of natural selection.

:coleman:

[miller-time]

and there is no theory of gravity. Gravity has been proven to exist.
:coleman:

Its existence is only a part of the theory. The theory states why gravity does what it does. We know the sky is blue but we also have created a theory to explain why it is blue.

[-p.tiddy-]

No it isn't, Humans separated from their closest ancestor and bred with each other, some also bred with neanderthals. Just like humans separated wolves from their groups used selective breeding and domesticated them.


It's a really simple/similar to each other.
eh, not really...dog breeds didn't actually "evolve"...they were forced

would have been better off saying something like "snakes evolved from lizards but there are still lizards" or something like that

[miller-time]

eh, not really...dog breeds didn't actually "evolve"...they were forced

Artificial selection, it is the same as natural selection except the selective process comes from humans rather than nature. Same process different cause. Although I guess you can argue that humans are a part of nature and therefore it is still natural selection. Either or, doesn't really matter.

[CelticBaller]

eh, not really...dog breeds didn't actually "evolve"...they were forced

would have been better off saying something like "snakes evolved from lizards but there are still lizards" or something like that
Look, I get where you coming from, but that's still evolution. It was just accelerated due to selective breeding.

[-p.tiddy-]

Artificial selection, it is the same as natural selection except the selective process comes from humans rather than nature. Same process different cause. Although I guess you can argue that humans are a part of nature and therefore it is still natural selection. Either or, doesn't really matter.
it's not the same process at all...dog breeds would have never survived in nature

evolution is based on natural flaws that happen to be best for the survival of a species...human's breeding animals is nothing like that at all

[outbreak]

I find it hard to fathom that some people believe in young earth theory and creationism and stuff like that. But it's their beliefs and their choice. I've heard jokes about how some people believe dinosaur bones are just a test from god but does anyone actually believe that? In Australia we don't really have the religious people that you have in the states, does anyone actually know people who believe this stuff or is it like a few small minority who are hard line? It's also sad for the children if they are bought up to believe in this...

I do enjoy reading and watching things about aliens fathering life and all that, even though I know it isn't true it's fun to wonder about it and I do believe that we give far too little credit to how past civilizations lived and the levels of intelligence they had. I don't believe they had crazy technology like the alien shows claim but throughout history there's been plenty of "modern" discoveries that turned out to really just be re discovering what humans had already known/done in the past.

[Is He Ill]

I find it hard to fathom that some people believe in young earth theory and creationism and stuff like that. But it's their beliefs and their choice. I've heard jokes about how some people believe dinosaur bones are just a test from god but does anyone actually believe that? In Australia we don't really have the religious people that you have in the states, does anyone actually know people who believe this stuff or is it like a few small minority who are hard line? It's also sad for the children if they are bought up to believe in this...

I do enjoy reading and watching things about aliens fathering life and all that, even though I know it isn't true it's fun to wonder about it and I do believe that we give far too little credit to how past civilizations lived and the levels of intelligence they had. I don't believe they had crazy technology like the alien shows claim but throughout history there's been plenty of "modern" discoveries that turned out to really just be re discovering what humans had already known/done in the past.

I used to think it was a very small minority, but I don't know what to think anymore. I've run into a fair amount of religious nutbags down here. They're definitely in the minority, but there are more than plenty of them to be found. They do a very good job concealing it as well, it doesn't become apparent until you get to know them well enough.

[miller-time]

it's not the same process at all...dog breeds would have never survived in nature

We are exploiting the underlying mechanisms. It is exactly the same process. We are selecting traits that we want to see that arise in a particular breed. Instead of the animal surviving in nature they are selected to survive in human society.

In nature a canine might need to be cunning and fearless so the ones that express those traits are more successful and pass on their genes. In society we might want a dog to be friendly and passive so we select those animals to pass on their genes. In one instance nature promotes one set of genes in the other humans promote a different set of genes. At the end of the day all that has happened is a specific set of genes have been passed onto successive generations.

[Inactive]

a theory is a hypothesis; a law is a proven fact, at least in the universe that we know of. So a law is the closest thing to certainty.

Theory: theory of relativity
Law: Law of thermodynamics, law of conservation of mass/energy.

and there is no theory of gravity. Gravity has been proven to exist.
:coleman:Nope.


A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it.


A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

[-p.tiddy-]

We are exploiting the underlying mechanisms. It is exactly the same process. We are selecting traits that we want to see that arise in a particular breed. Instead of the animal surviving in nature they are selected to survive in human society.

In nature a canine might need to be cunning and fearless so the ones that express those traits are more successful and pass on their genes. In society we might want a dog to be friendly and passive so we select those animals to pass on their genes. In one instance nature promotes one set of genes in the other humans promote a different set of genes. At the end of the day all that has happened is a specific set of genes have been passed onto successive generations.
so any time genes change it is "evolution"?...no matter what causes it?

[Patrick Chewing]

I certainly believe we've "evolved" after we were "created".

[-p.tiddy-]

Miller

Selective breeding and natural selection (evolution) are two very different things...the only thing similar about the two is that genes have changed from one state to another.

[CelticBaller]

Natural Selection and Artificial Selection are both part of evolution. Darwin discussed both in The Origins Of Species

[miller-time]

so any time genes change it is "evolution"?...no matter what causes it?

At the species level. A random mutation in a particular animal is just a random mutation. But if that mutation propagates throughout the species then that is considered evolution. Why it propagates doesn't really matter, whether it is because of man or nature.

[kNicKz]

I enjoy saying I don't believe in evolution just to see how worked up people who believe in it get . A lot of them are legitimately offended if you don't believe in what they do :roll:

[CelticBaller]

I enjoy saying I don't believe in evolution just to see how worked up people who believe in it get . A lot of them are legitimately offended if you don't believe in what they do :roll:
It's not that, it's just like me saying gravity isn't real. You know how stupid that sounds?

[-p.tiddy-]

At the species level. A random mutation in a particular animal is just a random mutation. But if that mutation propagates throughout the species then that is considered evolution. Why it propagates doesn't really matter, whether it is because of man or nature.
IMO selective breeding is much closer to "intelligent design" than it is "evolution"

[kNicKz]

It's not that, it's just like me saying gravity isn't real. You know how stupid that sounds?

Why do you care though? I never understood that. If someone told me they don't believe in gravity I would respect their view and not really give a shit . Doesn't effect me. It's a large world and not everyone relies on science for their answers. There is nothing wrong with that

[Inactive]

so any time genes change it is "evolution"?...no matter what causes it?

IMO selective breeding is much closer to "intelligent design" than it is "evolution"

Genes changing is just one part of evolution. Natural selection, sexual selection, breeding, etc. all just alter the particular frequency of a gene, or combination of genes, within a population.

Gene mutations, which are random, provide variation. The mutations which aid in reproduction end up being better represented within the population(i.e are selected), over time. When we breed animals, we're selecting for certain genes. When females copulate with dominant males (sexual selection), they're unwittingly selecting for certain genes. When a slow wildebeest gets pounced on by a lion (natural selection), nature is selecting for certain genes. They're all part of evolution.

[miller-time]

IMO selective breeding is much closer to "intelligent design" than it is "evolution"

Basically you are confusing the issue by thinking that because man is influencing the results it is no longer evolution.

In nature nuclear fusion occurs all of the time in stars that is a natural process. But it is one we can also manufacture. Just because we can mimic something nature does doesn't make it intelligent design. It just means we are using certain forces (either a reactor in the case of fusion or selecting traits in the case of evolution) to do what nature already does.

[CelticBaller]

Why do you care though? I never understood that. If someone told me they don't believe in gravity I would respect their view and not really give a shit . Doesn't effect me
I don't care that much, just find it ignorant sometimes and I would like to see their pov. When someone tells me they don't believe in evolution is usually because of what I posted earlier, if you were to tell me it's because of your religion I would be like ok and keep on, but it's usually the other way around and they try to argue with you.


Oh and if someone were to tell me gravity isn't real i would be like ok, I'll try to see their point, but if you were to argue with me...:oldlol:

[MadeFromDust]

The only thing evolutionists are good at is drawing stick pics and making up stories

[-p.tiddy-]

Basically you are confusing the issue by thinking that because man is influencing the results it is no longer evolution.

In nature nuclear fusion occurs all of the time in stars that is a natural process. But it is one we can also manufacture. Just because we can mimic something nature does doesn't make it intelligent design. It just means we are using certain forces (either a reactor in the case of fusion or selecting traits in the case of evolution) to do what nature already does.
so if "God" influenced the results that would also be "evolution" and not "intelligent design" correct?

[Is He Ill]

The only thing evolutionists are good at is drawing stick pics and making up stories

good point

[Inactive]

so if "God" influenced the results that would also be "evolution" and not "intelligent design" correct?Intelligent design (at least in some forms) isn't meant to be an alternative to evolution. It's meant to be an alternative mechanism to natural selection, as the primary driver of evolution.

Species being created in their current forms by God, rather than evolving, would be the alternative to evolution.

[miller-time]

so if "God" influenced the results that would also be "evolution" and not "intelligent design" correct?

Yes.

Intelligent design describes a model where certain cellular structures are irreducibly complex. Meaning there was no evolutionary pathway for them to arise, they had to have just appeared. If God is selecting based off of what is already there it is no different to what humans or nature are doing. If God is creating genes and inserting them himself then that would be intelligent design.

[outbreak]

I think one thing that some people don't grasp when it comes to things like evolution is the time frame involved, I've never met someone who denied evolution but on TV when I've seen people struggle with it they don't understand how something can just suddenly change when in reality it happens over a very large time period that is hard for humans to comprehend. Same thing with how it's hard for us to comprehend just how small the time period is that humans have been around for, if our species was wiped out tomorrow we're really just a small footnote in the history of species.

[shlver]

Biological evolution is the change in alleles over time. Artifical and natural selection share the same mechanism, the only difference is the source of selection.

[LJJ]

I think lowly of people who don't believe that evolution is real. I am sorry but it really irks me.

You shouldn't though. Very few people who agree that evolution is a fact know much about (if anything) the mechanics behind evolution and the evidence for it. Most people have no clue that so many of our medical advances are a direct result of our understand of evolution for instance. They simply accept the theory because they acknowledge the expertise behind the theory, not because they understand what is going on.

If that part of a persons rationale is corrupted from the day they were born it's very hard to break out of it. And especially inherently smart people can go literally insane trying to break out of it, like that Michael Behe guy.

[shlver]

I think one thing that some people don't grasp when it comes to things like evolution is the time frame involved, I've never met someone who denied evolution but on TV when I've seen people struggle with it they don't understand how something can just suddenly change when in reality it happens over a very large time period that is hard for humans to comprehend. Same thing with how it's hard for us to comprehend just how small the time period is that humans have been around for, if our species was wiped out tomorrow we're really just a small footnote in the history of species.
You do not need geological time scales to observe evolution. Just look at the artifical selection of dogs, evolution of fruit flies, evolution of microorganisms, etc. that have all been observed by humans.

[outbreak]

You do not need geological time scales to observe evolution. Just look at the artifical selection of dogs, evolution of fruit flies, evolution of microorganisms, etc. that have all been observed by humans.

selective breeding isn't really the same concept even if the end result is the same though. Like I'm talking about people saying they don't believe a giraffe somehow grew a longer neck to reach food and therefore it must have been designed by someone that way when in reality it's just a case of that species favouring long neck giraffes over a long time period.

[miller-time]

You do not need geological time scales to observe evolution. Just look at the artifical selection of dogs, evolution of fruit flies, evolution of microorganisms, etc. that have all been observed by humans.

It depends on the persons expectation. A lot of people just don't seem to grasp what evolution is and want demonstrations of extreme evolution in a short amount of time. Those people will probably never be convinced. I'm sure you've seen the Wendy Wright Richard Dawkins interview, if not prepare to punch your computer screen within the first 5 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AekFGksvuDU

[magic chiongson]

i believe in both evolution & creation, i think the 2 can work together :rockon:

[D-Rose]

i believe in both evolution & creation, i think the 2 can work together :rockon:
I respect that a lot and it's something more Christians need to do.

[-p.tiddy-]

Yes.

Intelligent design describes a model where certain cellular structures are irreducibly complex. Meaning there was no evolutionary pathway for them to arise, they had to have just appeared. If God is selecting based off of what is already there it is no different to what humans or nature are doing. If God is creating genes and inserting them himself then that would be intelligent design.
Fair enough

Although I'm sure most have natural selection in mind when using the word...

[-p.tiddy-]

i believe in both evolution & creation, i think the 2 can work together :rockon:
+1

[kNicKz]

I respect that a lot and it's something more Christians need to do.

:eek:

[miller-time]

Fair enough

Although I'm sure most have natural selection in mind when using the word...

At the end of the day all that evolution is describing is why we have different types of species. It doesn't really matter how those different species arose but why? And the answer is different genes were either allowed or disallowed to propagate over successive generations. Whether selection (allowance or disallowance) came from nature, God, man, or even aliens is irrelevant. All that matters is explaining the underlying mechanism that gives us different species of animals, plants, bacteria etc. Those are the broad strokes at least.

[Dictator]

Why do you "evolution heads" always argue over beliefs? Your motive isn't actually understanding someone elses opinion but to try and assert your supposed superiority upon others.

[CelticBaller]

i believe in both evolution & creation, i think the 2 can work together :rockon:
Same boat...kinda...

[miller-time]

Why do you "evolution heads" always argue over beliefs? Your motive isn't actually understanding someone elses opinion but to try and assert your supposed superiority upon others.

It doesn't matter what people believe, but if you are going to debate over the merits of a scientific theory then you need to have a correct understanding of said theory.

If I am going to argue theology and my understanding of say Christianity is completely wrong do you think a Christian would say "OK that is your belief," or would they correct me on where I am going wrong? If I thought that Mark betrayed Judas or Noah built a great fish to save all of the animals should a Christian correct me or just let me believe in something that the bible doesn't describe?

[Dictator]

It doesn't matter what people believe, but if you are going to debate over the merits of a scientific theory then you need to have a correct understanding of said theory.

If I am going to argue theology and my understanding of say Christianity is completely wrong do you think a Christian would say "OK that is your belief," or would they correct me on where I am going wrong? If I thought that Mark betrayed Judas or Noah built a great fish to save all of the animals should a Christian correct me or just let me believe in something that the bible doesn't describe?

That logic doesnt fit my dude. Of course an evolutionist can correct an evolutionist and christians can correct christians on christianity. What's the point of an evolutionist trying to change the beliefs of a creationist? Two different topics, let people have their beliefs without trying to make them feel inferior.

[miller-time]

That logic doesnt fit my dude. Of course an evolutionist can correct an evolutionist and christians can correct christians on christianity. What's the point of an evolutionist trying to change the beliefs of a creationist? Two different topics, let people have their beliefs without trying to make them feel inferior.

It isn't about changing belief it is about changing understanding. I don't believe in Christianity but I think I have a reasonable understanding of it. If I didn't understand a particular aspect of it I would hope that a Christian or someone with more knowledge than I have on the subject would correct me.

That is the whole point of this conversation. Very few if any of us are going to change our positions, we already know that. Some of us have been going back and forth for years on this site. What we gain is possible access to new ideas and modifications to old ones. Our opinions don't change, just out understanding of other peoples opinions.

[FiveRings]

I do not "believe" in evolution, just as I do not believe that the Earth is a sphere. I accept both as facts because they are supported by overwhelming evidence.



Selective breeding and natural selection (evolution) are two very different things...the only thing similar about the two is that genes have changed from one state to another.
Natural selection is not evolution. Natural selection is the mechanism. Evolution simply means change. You really should educate yourself before getting involved in discussions like this. You don't even know what the word evolution means.

[kNicKz]

If I am going to argue theology and my understanding of say Christianity is completely wrong do you think a Christian would say "OK that is your belief,"

I'm a Christian and that is exactly what I would say :confusedshrug:

The Bible is open to interpretation, as are scientific findings. Everyone sees them differently, making no "right" or "wrong" opinions.

edit: changed "scientific theories" to "scientific findings". Makes more sense

[outbreak]

If this topic is moving more into religion, my girlfriend was trying to tell me the other day that the majority of christians and catholics no longer believe in heaven and hell and don't take it literally. I was raised half heartedly catholic but was never really into it and my family didn't really do anything besides baptisms and what not but I thought even if most people don't believe in all of the bible that heaven and hell and that your soul goes somewhere would still be a pretty important part of calling yourself a christian or a catholic wouldn't it? Anyone know more about this?

[Inactive]

If this topic is moving more into religion, my girlfriend was trying to tell me the other day that the majority of christians and catholics no longer believe in heaven and hell and don't take it literally. I was raised half heartedly catholic but was never really into it and my family didn't really do anything besides baptisms and what not but I thought even if most people don't believe in all of the bible that heaven and hell and that your soul goes somewhere would still be a pretty important part of calling yourself a christian or a catholic wouldn't it? Anyone know more about this?Catholic or Christian? :biggums: Catholics are Christian, as are Orthodox Christians, and the numerous protestant denominations.

Anyway, your girlfriend is wrong. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57347634/

[kNicKz]

Anyway, your girlfriend is wrong. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57347634/


The AP-GfK Poll was conducted Dec. 8-12 and is based on interviews with 1,000 adults nationally.

Very strong, conclusive poll.

[outbreak]

Catholic or Christian? :biggums: Catholics are Christian, as are Orthodox Christians, and the numerous protestant denominations.

Anyway, your girlfriend is wrong. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57347634/

good to know, I was always confused myself as to the differences and I'd had people tell me they aren't Christian their catholic. I never paid much attention to it growing up, over here I haven't ever met someone who is seriously religious like you seem to get in some parts of America.

[Dictator]

good to know, I was always confused myself as to the differences and I'd had people tell me they aren't Christian their catholic. I never paid much attention to it growing up, over here I haven't ever met someone who is seriously religious like you seem to get in some parts of America.

Dude, catholic and christian is pretty different.

Christian is strictly old and new testament.

Catholic ties in with the pope, and vatican city.

[CelticBaller]

A catholic is still a christian, while a christian may not be a catholic, for example, he may be a protestant.

Pretty different in a sense, but I can't see how it can be confusing tbh

Edit: Just like a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't a square. Makes sense right?

[outbreak]

Dude, catholic and christian is pretty different.

Christian is strictly old and new testament.

Catholic ties in with the pope, and vatican city.

i thought they were different too, I never remembered what my family was though as they weren't practising or anything, we were italian though and had the pope

[Inactive]

Very strong, conclusive poll.I assume you're being sarcastic, but you didn't really provide any reason why it isn't. If their sample reflects the diversity of the nation, then they don't need a great number of participants. It's also consistent with other polls.

I've looked at it myself, and it does seem that their sample was skewed a bit towards rural participants. 65% of their participants were from urban areas, 34% rural. Around 80% of the overall population is urban. For the most part their sample seems to reflect national averages though.


over here I haven't ever met someone who is seriously religious like you seem to get in some parts of America. What country are you from?

[outbreak]

What country are you from?

Australia, I'm sure we do have people who take it seriously, I've just never met any myself. A friend told me awhile back about how his mate went out with a girl who had bible groups and all that, she wouldn't do it before marriage but was happy doing everything else which seemed a bit odd to us. I mean we have a bunch of churches all over the place and people go there but I don't seem to know any hardcore people who go every sunday and follow everything properly. The only time I go to a church now is for weddings and funerals.

[Inactive]

Australia, I'm sure we do have people who take it seriously, I've just never met any myself. A friend told me awhile back about how his mate went out with a girl who had bible groups and all that, she wouldn't do it before marriage but was happy doing everything else which seemed a bit odd to us. I mean we have a bunch of churches all over the place and people go there but I don't seem to know any hardcore people who go every sunday and follow everything properly. The only time I go to a church now is for weddings and funerals.Yeah, you guys aren't very religious compared to the states. Still, 71% of Australian Christians believe in life after death, 57% believe in hell, 59% believe in the devil. It seems 13-17% of self reported Christians in your country don't really believe in anything supernatural.

[miller-time]

I'm a Christian and that is exactly what I would say :confusedshrug:

The Bible is open to interpretation, as are scientific findings. Everyone sees them differently, making no "right" or "wrong" opinions.

edit: changed "scientific theories" to "scientific findings". Makes more sense

And if I said "Christianity says it is acceptable to murder people in their sleep" you would just let me continue believing that? My interpretation is acceptable because you are cool with any wild interpretation? Maybe. But what if I said "Christianity says it is acceptable to murder people in their sleep therefore we should ban it" are you still not going to defend your belief, or because any misinterpretation is cool any response to that misinterpretation is cool too? What if I said "Christianity says it is acceptable to murder people in their sleep therefore I am going to start murdering Christians in their sleep" is that response also still cool or would you correct me then? At what point do you say "hold on, I think you might have it wrong, that isn't what Christianity is about"?

[red1]

Evolution is not something you choose to believe or disbelieve. What, are we back in the 19th century or something?

[miller-time]

Evolution is not something you choose to believe or disbelieve. What, are we back in the 19th century or something?

Well you do choose to believe it. But you believe it based on evidence not faith. Belief is anything you accept as true (or as close to true as you can get). But how you arrive at your conclusion is entirely up to you. But from my observation faith is a pretty poor way to figure out what is true and what isn't hence all of the different religions and there lack of internal self regulation. If faith were a good method then it would seem at some point different people should converge on some truth, but instead the more people that believe on faith the more fractured their respective beliefs become.

[red1]

Well you do choose to believe it. But you believe it based on evidence not faith. Belief is anything you accept as true (or as close to true as you can get). But how you arrive at your conclusion is entirely up to you. But from my observation faith is a pretty poor way to figure out what is true and what isn't (hence all of the different religions and there lack of internal self regulation).
One chooses not to believe in evolution the same way one would choose not to believe in gravity. In other words it's identical to choosing to be an imbecile. Does that make sense?

[miller-time]

One chooses not to believe in evolution the same way one would choose not to believe in gravity. In other words it's identical to choosing to be an imbecile. Does that make sense?

Well the effects of gravity are easily observable, evolution is a little bit more abstract and less self evident. It is easier to turn a blind eye and remain willfully ignorant and allow faith based reasoning to supersede the evidence for it.

[nightprowler10]

Dude, catholic and christian is pretty different.

Christian is strictly old and new testament.

Catholic ties in with the pope, and vatican city.
Any denomination that believes in Jesus Christ and his teachings is by definition Christian. Everything else is just glorified semantics. Just like anyone that believes in the Islamic creed is a Muslim, doesn't matter if they call themselves Sunni or Shia.

[nightprowler10]

Natural selection is not evolution. Natural selection is the mechanism. Evolution simply means change.
This is a key point in this discussion. People don't understand what they're calling a 'lie'.

[-p.tiddy-]

One chooses not to believe in evolution the same way one would choose not to believe in gravity. In other words it's identical to choosing to be an imbecile. Does that make sense?
nah...if you don't believe in evolution then you are just uneducated...if you don't believe in gravity then you're clinically insane

[magic chiongson]

Dude, catholic and christian is pretty different.

Christian is strictly old and new testament.

Catholic ties in with the pope, and vatican city.

catholics are christians.

the pope is christian.

[greymatter]

I think lowly of people who don't believe that evolution is real. I am sorry but it really irks me.

Once I was arguing with this kid, and his arguments was if evolution is real, and we came from monkeys, why are there monkeys still out there? Hey idiot, dogs came from wolves, and there still many species of wolves out there :facepalm

Wrong answer. The correct one is that "we don't come from monkeys; we share a common ancestry with them".

[Bandito]

a theory is a hypothesis; a law is a proven fact, at least in the universe that we know of. So a law is the closest thing to certainty.

Theory: theory of relativity
Law: Law of thermodynamics, law of conservation of mass/energy.

and there is no theory of gravity. Gravity has been proven to exist.
:coleman:
You just prove why people who says evolution is a certainty and the people who says creationism is the certainty are both idiots.

Everything you said defined and differentiate theory from law perfectly. What people that didnt actually read darwins theory of evolution. I am like "hello" that theory is more fulls of holes that the people shot in the hood.

[Budadiiii]

You just prove why people who says evolution is a certainty and the people who says creationism is the certainty are both idiots.

Everything you said defined and differentiate theory from law perfectly. What people that didnt actually read darwins theory of evolution. I am like "hello" that theory is more fulls of holes that the people shot in the hood.
Except the ones who say evolution is a certainty are not as big as idiots as the ones who say creationism is a certainty, am I right?

Evolution is a certainty, get over it.

[red1]

Well the effects of gravity are easily observable, evolution is a little bit more abstract and less self evident. It is easier to turn a blind eye and remain willfully ignorant and allow faith based reasoning to supersede the evidence for it.

nah...if you don't believe in evolution then you are just uneducated...if you don't believe in gravity then you're clinically insane
True enough. My post assumes that one has a basic high-school education. If someone has been taught evolution in school and still refuses to "believe" in it then truly that would make them an idiot.

[kNicKz]

And if I said "Christianity says it is acceptable to murder people in their sleep" you would just let me continue believing that? My interpretation is acceptable because you are cool with any wild interpretation? Maybe. But what if I said "Christianity says it is acceptable to murder people in their sleep therefore we should ban it" are you still not going to defend your belief, or because any misinterpretation is cool any response to that misinterpretation is cool too? What if I said "Christianity says it is acceptable to murder people in their sleep therefore I am going to start murdering Christians in their sleep" is that response also still cool or would you correct me then? At what point do you say "hold on, I think you might have it wrong, that isn't what Christianity is about"?

At no point. People are entitled to whatever they want to believe. Nothing I say is going to change that . I don't feel the need to force my beliefs onto others. That doesn't do anything for me. Also, did you just compare believing in Evolution to Christians being allowed killing each other in their sleep? lol....I simply said that it's acceptable to not believe in evolution. You aren't open minded if you are shocked and offended when you encounter viewpoints that don't match your own

[boozehound]

Dude, catholic and christian is pretty different.

Christian is strictly old and new testament.

Catholic ties in with the pope, and vatican city.
you do realize that every christian faith (outside of eastern orthodox and coptic) is an outgrowth of Catholicism? All western Christian traditions are rooted in Catholicism for 1000 years.

[MavsSuperFan]

Dude, catholic and christian is pretty different.

Christian is strictly old and new testament.

Catholic ties in with the pope, and vatican city.
There are 2 main branches of Christianity

1. Catholicism
2. Protestantism

Catholicism is the largest and most organized. It is centralized in the Vatican and lead by the Pope. At its peak the Pope was the most powerful political force in europe, with a real army. (also they could just excommunicate a king or lord the disagreed with, and the superstitious peasants at the time would have turned against their lord/king)

Protestants are basically everything that is not Catholic, including but not limited to Anglicans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists, Evangelical, Lutherans, etc.

There were 2 great schisms in Christian history.

1. martin Luther (a catholic priest) saw that the catholic church was selling indulgences (basically get out of hell cards) to rich lords and basically allowing rich people to get away with sinning. He was pissed at this and that the catholic church was so rich while so many catholic peasants were dirt poor. He started the protestant reformation, believing that the church had been corrupted by money. He kept preaching about the evils of the church and refused the popes order to stop and retract his criticisms. The Pope excommunicated him and the Holy Roman Emperor condemned him as an outlaw.

2. King Henry the 8th married the sister of the emperor of spain. Henry wanted to annul the marriage. The Pope thought that the emperor of spain was more powerful and refused his request for an annulment. So Henry created the church of england, and is why England and America today is mostly protestant.

[MavsSuperFan]

a theory is a hypothesis; a law is a proven fact, at least in the universe that we know of. So a law is the closest thing to certainty.

Theory: theory of relativity
Law: Law of thermodynamics, law of conservation of mass/energy.

and there is no theory of gravity. Gravity has been proven to exist.
:coleman:
wrong.

A theory is a hypothesis with a lot of evidence behind it.

A scientific theory already has a very high standard of evidence requirement

A hypothesis has no testing behind it/supporting its accuracy.
They are not the same thing

[Dictator]

To everyone quoting me:

Yes catholics are christian but not all christians are catholics.

[MavsSuperFan]

creationism and evolution are both theories. One has evidence, the other is all faith. But even the one with the evidence is still called a theory. It just comes down to what the thread says: "believe".
Scientific Theory


A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.
Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

There is an ocean of difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theory.

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.

You dont have to believe in the theory of evolution. it already has a mountain of evidence

The difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law is not that laws have a higher standard of proof. Scientific laws are narrower in scope and focus.


Both scientific laws and scientific theories are produced from the scientific method through the formation and testing of hypotheses, and can predict the behavior of the natural world. Both are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence.[23] However, scientific laws are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.[24] Scientific theories are broader in scope, and give overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics. Theories are supported by evidence from many different sources, and may contain one or several laws.[25]
A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory; a law will always remain a law.[23][26]
Theories and laws are also distinct from hypotheses. Unlike hypotheses, theories and laws may be simply referred to as scientific fact.

[MavsSuperFan]

Why do you care though? I never understood that. If someone told me they don't believe in gravity I would respect their view and not really give a shit . Doesn't effect me. It's a large world and not everyone relies on science for their answers. There is nothing wrong with that
The problem is there is something very wrong with ignoring facts and evidence. just think about all of the medical advance alone that come from accepting the reality of evolution. How do you study the changes in viruses if you dont accept evolution?


I enjoy saying I don't believe in evolution just to see how worked up people who believe in it get . A lot of them are legitimately offended if you don't believe in what they do :roll:

Its fine if you choose to be ignorant of science. The problem is the people who want to prevent the teaching of evolution in our schools, or to teach intelligent design in our science classes. This has long term effects on our nation's national security, economy and health care system.
\
Genes changing is just one part of evolution. Natural selection, sexual selection, breeding, etc. all just alter the particular frequency of a gene, or combination of genes, within a population.

Gene mutations, which are random, provide variation. The mutations which aid in reproduction end up being better represented within the population(i.e are selected), over time. When we breed animals, we're selecting for certain genes. When females copulate with dominant males (sexual selection), they're unwittingly selecting for certain genes. When a slow wildebeest gets pounced on by a lion (natural selection), nature is selecting for certain genes. They're all part of evolution.
:applause:

so if "God" influenced the results that would also be "evolution" and not "intelligent design" correct?
There is no evidence that natural selection is influenced by a sentient being though.


You shouldn't though. Very few people who agree that evolution is a fact know much about (if anything) the mechanics behind evolution and the evidence for it. Most people have no clue that so many of our medical advances are a direct result of our understand of evolution for instance. They simply accept the theory because they acknowledge the expertise behind the theory, not because they understand what is going on.

If that part of a persons rationale is corrupted from the day they were born it's very hard to break out of it. And especially inherently smart people can go literally insane trying to break out of it, like that Michael Behe guy.
Even if they dont understand it themselves, atleast they are humble enough to accept that something behind their understanding can be true, and that scientists smarter than them in this field do understand it.

I don't fully understand how the big bang theory works. Just because I am not knowledgeable enough in this field, I don't assume the theory is wrong.

[MavsSuperFan]

Why do you "evolution heads" always argue over beliefs? Your motive isn't actually understanding someone elses opinion but to try and assert your supposed superiority upon others.
Because there is evidence on our side, we dont believe anything.

Its like if I said Lebron is a better basketball player than Steve Blake

And you responded that it is your right to believe that steve blake is the better basketball player, and that if I deny your right to say Steve Blake is better at Basketball than Lebron, I am not respecting your opinion.

And further Inside the NBA should be forced to talk about the POV that Steve Blake is better at basketball than Lebron. That they should talk about all the opinions. No matter how much evidence there is that Lebron is better at basketball than Steve Blake, The opinion that steve blake is better at basketball than lebron should be given equal respect.

[Swaggin916]

If someone has a better theory than evolution, I am all ears. I haven't heard one yet.

[CelticBaller]

Wrong answer. The correct one is that "we don't come from monkeys; we share a common ancestry with them".
We derived form primates, people think of primates as monkeys, you know what he meant :confusedshrug:

[LJJ]

Even if they dont understand it themselves, atleast they are humble enough to accept that something behind their understanding can be true, and that scientists smarter than them in this field do understand it.

I don't fully understand how the big bang theory works. Just because I am not knowledgeable enough in this field, I don't assume the theory is wrong.

Sure, obviously. But that plays into what I'm saying though, if you grew up under different circumstances your whole concept of who to trust and who to revere would be different.

I know I'm smart enough to understand who has expertise and who hasn't. But I also recognize that my parents and other authority figures played a part in giving me the freedom of relatively free thought. Not everyone has this luxury, but it doesn't mean I have to have disdain for their intellectual ability. It's largely a matter of how you grew up and how much you were allowed to come to your own conclusions.

[DonDadda59]

Whether one 'believes' in evolution or not is completely irrelevant (Unless they try to use the legal/education system to force their 'beliefs' on the masses). It is a question of tangible evidence/fact, not blind faith taken on the word of ancient goat herders.

[greymatter]

We derived form primates, people think of primates as monkeys, you know what he meant :confusedshrug:

All I know is that he's an ignorant buffoon railing on something he has zero understanding of. We don't "derive from" primates. We "are" primates. Try educating yourself about the biological classification hierarchy. Primates are in the "family" classification, just above "genus", which is above "species".

[CelticBaller]

All I know is that he's an ignorant buffoon railing on something he has zero understanding of. We don't "derive from" primates. We "are" primates. Try educating yourself about the biological classification hierarchy. Primates are in the "family" classification, just above "genus", which is above "species".
Ugh, again, we are in the same genus as gorillas , Hominidae or big apes if I am correct, god damn it, our closest ancestors are the bonobo monkeys. I just didn't feel like going specific because he was a moron. Now get off your high horse, ofc I know this shit. :oldlol:

[greymatter]

Ugh, again, we are in the same genus as gorillas ,

Actually, we aren't. "Gorilla" is its own genus. Our genus is "homo".

[CelticBaller]

Actually, we aren't. "Gorilla" is its own genus. Our genus is "homo".
True, Hominidae is a family. :facepalm
Well, since I'm a science and technology major, mistakes like this are expected, instead of arguing you learn.

[Dictator]

Because there is evidence on our side, we dont believe anything.

Its like if I said Lebron is a better basketball player than Steve Blake

And you responded that it is your right to believe that steve blake is the better basketball player, and that if I deny your right to say Steve Blake is better at Basketball than Lebron, I am not respecting your opinion.

And further Inside the NBA should be forced to talk about the POV that Steve Blake is better at basketball than Lebron. That they should talk about all the opinions. No matter how much evidence there is that Lebron is better at basketball than Steve Blake, The opinion that steve blake is better at basketball than lebron should be given equal respect.

Do you guys even read? The point is not whether one is wrong or right. It's that you guys only argue over this because you feel you're superior to others.

[kNicKz]

Its fine if you choose to be ignorant of science


I think that science is important but I don't accept science as the explanation for everything that surrounds me. There are millions of things that science hasn't explained,and we truly know close to nothing about the planet we live on.





The problem is the people who want to prevent the teaching of evolution in our schools, or to teach intelligent design in our science classes. This has long term effects on our nation's national security, economy and health care system.


Evolution is taught in schools and there is 0 restriction on researching it independently in the United States.

[rezznor]

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/1965o15ialqvijpg/ku-medium.jpg

[Inactive]

I think that science is important but I don't accept science as the explanation for everything that surrounds me. What do you mean by this? What things surround you, which are incompatible with science?


Do you guys even read? The point is not whether one is wrong or right. It's that you guys only argue over this because you feel you're superior to others.That isn't what motivates me.

1. Many people don't have a firm position yet. They don't know who is right, and who is wrong. Their ultimate decision will depend on the arguments that they see/hear. They will go over to whichever side seems more convincing. If there is no public argument, then they will think that there are simply competing authorities, making equally valid claims, and believe whatever resonates with them emotionally.

2. Some people have genuine misunderstandings. They honestly think that their position is the right one. If things were just clarified for them, it would deepen their understanding, and enable them to rethink their position.

3. It's easy to privately hold a false belief, and never really question it. When you put your thoughts to paper, especially if open to criticism, you're more likely to notice the flaws in your own thinking.

4. The ideas which are considered acceptable in a society play a role in shaping the way the culture develops. If we let stupid ideas go unopposed, we will be a stupid society. If we let intolerant ideas go unopposed, we will be an intolerant society. If we believe that it all comes down to individual preferences, and that no ideas are truly better than others, we will be a weak, apathetic society.

[Lebron23]

Greatest Stable in WWE History. Enough said.

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/images/photos/001/210/858/WWEEvolution_crop_650x440.jpg

http://www.wwe.com/f/wysiwyg/image/2013/02/evolution_group.jpg

http://www.wwe.com/f/styles/photo_large/public/photo/image/2011/12/05_BIB_Evolution.jpg

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/images/photos/001/210/858/WWEEvolution_crop_650x440.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-eXA5IPAhZKM/UVnH0_lHKHI/AAAAAAAAIgs/of8XB1I0MGM/s1600/batista-randy-ortan-ric-fairy-triple-h.jpg

[outbreak]

Greatest Stable in WWE History. Enough said.

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/images/photos/001/210/858/WWEEvolution_crop_650x440.jpg

http://www.wwe.com/f/wysiwyg/image/2013/02/evolution_group.jpg

http://www.wwe.com/f/styles/photo_large/public/photo/image/2011/12/05_BIB_Evolution.jpg

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/images/photos/001/210/858/WWEEvolution_crop_650x440.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-eXA5IPAhZKM/UVnH0_lHKHI/AAAAAAAAIgs/of8XB1I0MGM/s1600/batista-randy-ortan-ric-fairy-triple-h.jpg


screenshots from a gay porno?

[Lebron23]

screenshots from a gay porno?


What planet are you from? The Past, The Present and the Future of Wrestling.

[outbreak]

The Past, The Present and the Future of Wrestling.

is that it's title?

[boozehound]

screenshots from a gay porno?
sure looks it. Which manmeat does lebron 23 prefer?

[n00bie]

People argue this beetle defies evolution.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lKM9yoQ3Wug

[miller-time]

People argue this beetle defies evolution.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lKM9yoQ3Wug

That is an old argument, if people are still talking about that then you know they aren't in the debate, they are just throwing things out and hoping their target audience just take it as fact.

Richard Dawkins from 1991..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi4OdrITkqY

[Bandito]

Except the ones who say evolution is a certainty are not as big as idiots as the ones who say creationism is a certainty, am I right?

Evolution is a certainty, get over it.
Right because idiots from the evolution side are that much smarter than the idiots from the church side riiiight .All i see is some idiots trying to make reason of why they exist by trying to put their made up ideas without proof as the real truth, just like the christians do. Until there is empirical truth that mass evolution happened i will take what they say with a grain if salt.

To be honest i do believe in evolution but i respect the creationists because evolution is not the real truth until proven otherwise.

[D-Rose]

I'll just remind everyone that science never believes in anything to be an absolute certainty. Science deals in relative certainties. On the spectrum of certainty, a scientific theory is the closest thing to absolute truth, and that is where evolution is for scientists.

[rufuspaul]

I've never understood why any religion would consider the theory of evolution to be a threat. To me there's no reason for a belief in a higher power/spirit to contradict natural selection and evolution.

Earlier in the thread several posters said that if someone refutes evolution it doesn't matter to them. Here's why it should matter: Although only a small minority of evangelical Christians (Protestants, for all you Catholic bashers) demonize evolution and promote such nonsense as the earth only being 4000 years old, they have been able to have enough political power to actually change the way evolutionary science is taught in schools in places like Texas and Tennessee. This is a very dangerous development imo.

[DCL]

i actually have a dark secret that i hide from my friends and family, which is that i post regularly on this f--king board.

sometimes i wonder what they will think if they see i'm in a forum that makes threads like "damn, i just jerked off to anime. my dad is gonna whoops my ass" or some other senseless bullshit. the ass and boobs threads that come up once in awhile are fine and normal, but a lot of stuff is just weird. i come here because it's a guilty pleasure and i do find some shit entertaining, but i'm sure "less abnormal' people might find this shit totally retarded, and i probably can't refute that assertion.

but of all the possible threads that i think can be embarrassing, this has to be the tops. what kind of f--king idiots still ask if evolution is legit or not. are you still living in a cave? that debate is just so f--king retarded i can't believe i'm here to read it. it doesn't matter if you can't explain black holes or astrophysics, but if you can't even understand evolution, you're just the most retarded mothafugga on the planet.

and the second most retarded mothafugga... that would be me because i hang out with you hopeless retards on this forum.

:hammerhead:

[MavsSuperFan]

I think that science is important but I don't accept science as the explanation for everything that surrounds me. There are millions of things that science hasn't explained,and we truly know close to nothing about the planet we live on.

true enough

However, the point of the scientific method is to only accept an idea if there is evidence and testing behind it and if that idea produces testable conclusions which turn out to be true.

If society doesnt require evidence to form beliefs, then what is the argument against believing that a being named the Supreme Kai rules the universe and works hard to prevent a magical demon named Majin Buu from being reincarnated?


Evolution is taught in schools and there is 0 restriction on researching it independently in the United States.
There is a movement in the US, (mainly the bible belt and the south) to start teaching intelligent design in biology classes.

Many conservative congressman support the teaching of intelligent design (which is just creationism) and also vote and advocate for the defunding of public science education.


Do you guys even read? The point is not whether one is wrong or right. It's that you guys only argue over this because you feel you're superior to others.
If someone came up to you and said that they know just as much about basketball as you and that they base this on their belief that Steve Blake is a better basketball player than Lebron, would you not feel that in regards to your basketball knowledge you are superior to them?

You can feel superior to some people in some facets, but at the same time feel inferior in many other facets. If person A feels superior to Person B because person A accepts evolution as scientific fact, and person B believes that intelligent design is correct and has supporting evidence, then Person A is justified in believing they have superior knowledge of how homo sapiens came to exist. Now this doesnt mean that Person B is not in fact superior in all other ways.

A person believing that steve blake is better than Lebron is similar to believing in intelligent design, as they both have the same amount of supporting evidence, and both beliefs have a mountain of conflicting evidence.



Earlier in the thread several posters said that if someone refutes evolution it doesn't matter to them. Here's why it should matter: Although only a small minority of evangelical Christians (Protestants, for all you Catholic bashers) demonize evolution and promote such nonsense as the earth only being 4000 years old, they have been able to have enough political power to actually change the way evolutionary science is taught in schools in places like Texas and Tennessee. This is a very dangerous development imo.

This is why people have a problem with evolution deniers

[rufuspaul]

There is a movement in the US, (mainly the bible belt and the south) to start teaching intelligent design in biology classes.

Many conservative congressman support the teaching of intelligent design (which is just creationism) and also vote and advocate for the defunding of public science education.



Crazy shit, and it doesn't stop with evolution. The ass backward hillbilly legislature in my state voted last year to completely ignore any predictions of rising sea levels that were based on actual hard data and scientific research. In their own twisted way it's an attempt to spur economic development along the coast. "I don't care what some long haired hippy college sissy says about rising sea levels, I say we build a big goddamn casino right on the beach!"

Of course if they truly have God on their side they might actually be able to stop the sea level from rising.

[-p.tiddy-]

I've never understood why any religion would consider the theory of evolution to be a threat. To me there's no reason for a belief in a higher power/spirit to contradict natural selection and evolution.

Earlier in the thread several posters said that if someone refutes evolution it doesn't matter to them. Here's why it should matter: Although only a small minority of evangelical Christians (Protestants, for all you Catholic bashers) demonize evolution and promote such nonsense as the earth only being 4000 years old, they have been able to have enough political power to actually change the way evolutionary science is taught in schools in places like Texas and Tennessee. This is a very dangerous development imo.

I want to say this is way overblown though...I grew up in Dallas went to school here at every level and in science class we were shown the theory of evolution and NOT Adam and Eve.

and we were taught the scientific method...

I could be wrong but I really don't think there are any science books in Texas that are teaching creationism as fact, world only 4000 years old, etc...if so then that needs to be dealt with ASAP

[D-Rose]

I've never understood why any religion would consider the theory of evolution to be a threat. To me there's no reason for a belief in a higher power/spirit to contradict natural selection and evolution.

Earlier in the thread several posters said that if someone refutes evolution it doesn't matter to them. Here's why it should matter: Although only a small minority of evangelical Christians (Protestants, for all you Catholic bashers) demonize evolution and promote such nonsense as the earth only being 4000 years old, they have been able to have enough political power to actually change the way evolutionary science is taught in schools in places like Texas and Tennessee. This is a very dangerous development imo.
Totally agree. A person can believe that God created the Earth, but should accept the evolution/natural selection is just one of the many ways in which their God made the world.

[rufuspaul]

I want to say this is way overblown though...I grew up in Dallas went to school here at every level and in science class we were shown the theory of evolution and NOT Adam and Eve.



http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/09/texas_science_textbooks_creationists_try_to_remove _evolution_from_classrooms.html



[Quote]
The Texas state Board of Education is in the process of adopting new science textbooks that will be used in public schools for the next decade. On Tuesday, the board held its first hearing for public comment on which textbooks should be adopted. Creationists came out in full force and demanded that

[DCL]

Texas, we have a problem...

[-p.tiddy-]

If creationism is taught to my son in ANY classroom I will remove him from that school...that's just flat out ignorant bull shit, but it is saying right now some people are "causing controversy" because evolution and climate change ARE in the science books currently

Rick Perry is a complete fcking retard...that man makes Bush Jr look like Einstein. It's just impossible to defend him. Only reason extreme over the top conservatives like that are in power here is because they have extreme wealth, and that shit needs to end already.

[miller-time]

If creationism is taught to my son in ANY classroom I will remove him from that school...that's just flat out ignorant bull shit, but it is saying right now some people are "causing controversy" because evolution and climate change ARE in the science books currently

Reminds me of this video, those people are nuts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0fPDnjZpz0

[-p.tiddy-]

Reminds me of this video, those people are nuts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0fPDnjZpz0
wow, not sure where that is but I know it's somehwere in the DEEP south...it says he is forced to teach evolution though, but he "struggles" due to everyone's religious beliefs...so at least the state got it right, it's just being fcked up on a local level

[miller-time]

wow, not sure where that is but I know it's somehwere in the DEEP south...it says he is forced to teach evolution though, but he "struggles" due to everyone's religious beliefs...so at least the state got it right, it's just being fcked up on a local level

I think that is part of the problem, even if it is state mandated at the local level teachers may still try to find ways to undermine evolution or promote creationism.

This is the school http://rchs.rheacounty.org/?PageName=%27Directions%27 it is in Tennessee.

[outbreak]

schools already teach a lot of history incorrectly but not teaching evolution is beyond retarded.
there's a book called lies my teacher told me that;'s pretty good

[miller-time]

At no point. People are entitled to whatever they want to believe. Nothing I say is going to change that .

Again it isn't about what people believe but what they understand. Now part of the problem has been that I've tried to put religion and science on even ground. But you are right, interpretation of religious belief is entirely up to the individual and they have the right to believe what they want. However science is far less interpretive than religion. When understanding a well grounded scientific theory there is very little room for interpretation. It doesn't matter if you believe it is true or not, but the details of the theory are very specific.

If I gave you an explanation as to why the moon shines (we'll call it "moon shining theory") it could be wrong but the points within the theory can only be interpreted one way. There is only one way you can interpret "the moon shines because it is reflecting light from the Sun towards the Earth." You don't have to believe it, you just have to understand it. If you then turned around and told me that moon shining theory stated "the moon shines because it reflects light back from Earth" I would correct you and tell you that the theory doesn't state that at all. You can't believe a scientific theory says something it doesn't. You can only accept the theory or not. When people say a theory says something it doesn't they are wrong.

Belief and understanding are two different things and when people don't understand something you are within your rights to correct them.

[MadeFromDust]

Carbon-14 dating = horribly inconsistent, inaccurate "scientific" tool we're talking WAY off lmao

[Flash31]

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/1965o15ialqvijpg/ku-medium.jpg


Oh theyre making Rambo 5 with the title of
First Blood again,yes!

[Flash31]

To put this simply,out of all the historical inaccuracies and flat out lies the US teaches in schools,
this would be the worst.

School,government,laws should not have to and should not include religous beliefs and their cutoms in them.

What's next,there were no Dinosaurs.The Earth isn't billions of years old.Humns,more specifically homo sapiens aren't 350,000 years old.

If somebody teaches kids that all humans came from Adam and Eve wit Eve created from the rib of Adam,the Earth is only 5000 years old,and Evolution doesn't exist even though there is clear scientific evidence that it does,

somebody should sue the ever living crap out of the people who institute those teachings and who teach them.

[Scholar]

I used to not believe in Evolution, but then I saw Charmander evolve into Charmeleon and my world changed.

[MavsSuperFan]

Reminds me of this video, those people are nuts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0fPDnjZpz0
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

And yet some people wonder why the south is the poorest part of America?

Edit
Also that girl who said evolution is not even a theory, and isnt proven :facepalm She is lucky she is decent looking.

Afterwards says we must have been made by god:rolleyes:

The teacher: I believe I give the evolution point of view equal time with the creationism POV.... How could I say to a student your ideas are trash? keep them out of this room I dont want to hear them.

So what if these kids wanted to believe that arsenic was good for you?

This guy is a science teacher.:facepalm

[miller-time]

And yet some people wonder why the south is the poorest part of America?

Religion man, it keeps people in a box and emotionally persuades them to vote against their best interests.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Reminds me of this video, those people are nuts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0fPDnjZpz0
:roll: :roll:

[Take Your Lumps]

Carbon-14 dating = horribly inconsistent, inaccurate "scientific" tool we're talking WAY off lmao

This checks out guys - he's legit.

[zoom17]

http://www.miqel.com/images_1/transhumanism_nano/evolution.jpg

[ace23]

Reminds me of this video, those people are nuts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0fPDnjZpz0
Is that Dayton, TX? :oldlol:

[Inactive]

Is that Dayton, TX? :oldlol:Dayton, TN.

[-p.tiddy-]

Obviously those are deep south accents and not rural Texas accents...

Pretty sure that teacher lives on a plantation...drinks molasses... Etc

[TheGreatDeraj]

we didn't like evolve from anything that doesn't make any sense...

How can an African american person evolve from a white person? We're different skin.

[ace23]

Obviously those are deep south accents and not rural Texas accents...

Pretty sure that teacher lives on a plantation...drinks molasses... Etc
And Tennessee's not in the deep south.

[MavsSuperFan]

we didn't like evolve from anything that doesn't make any sense...

How can an African american person evolve from a white person? We're different skin.
:lol :lol :lol
He thought he was making an intelligent point

[miller-time]

we didn't like evolve from anything that doesn't make any sense...

How can an African american person evolve from a white person? We're different skin.

The thing is if you were a kid in that class and corrected them you would probably be the most outcasted kid in high school.

[miller-time]

At no point. People are entitled to whatever they want to believe. Nothing I say is going to change that . I don't feel the need to force my beliefs onto others.

So these guys are cool to believe whatever they want too?

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/11/16/more-children-killed-by-religiously-based-medical-neglect/

The problem with the wishy-washy philosophy of "people are free to believe whatever they want" is that there are real world consequences to believing in stupid erroneous shit.

[Take Your Lumps]

The thing is if you were a kid in that class and corrected them you would probably be the most outcasted kid in high school.

Odds are there was at least one kid in that classroom just fuming the whole time knowing he couldn't speak up.

[fiddy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2507377/Humans-NOT-come-Earth--sunburn-bad-backs-pain-labour-prove-expert-claims.html

[MadeFromDust]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2507377/Humans-NOT-come-Earth--sunburn-bad-backs-pain-labour-prove-expert-claims.html
wow! scientists are some of the looniest people. cuckoo. cuckoo :banana: